‘People have murdered for far less,’ prosecutor says during charge conference in Troconis trial

State prosecutors and Michelle Troconis' defense attorneys met at Stamford Superior Court Monday to discuss the charge instructions that will be given to the jury Tuesday.

State prosecutors and defense attorneys for Michelle Troconis met with Judge Kevin A. Randolph at Stamford Superior Court on Monday morning to discuss the details of the charge instructions that will be given to the jury on Tuesday, right before they are sent off to begin deliberations in Troconis’ criminal trial.

The charge conference, which was held in open court in Stamford from about 10:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. Monday, is a proceeding that has historically been held off the record. The purpose is for attorneys and the court to review the instructions that the jury will receive before they deliberate on each charge individually.

“Historically, charge conferences for criminal matters were held in closed chambers,” Randolph said on Monday.

That changed in recent years, but Randolph said Monday’s charge conference was the first time in Connecticut history that such a conference has been livestreamed.

Troconis’ defense team and state prosecutors went back and forth for hours Monday, deciding what the jury would hear before they deliberate the charges. They debated big and small details, from misspellings and punctuation marks to whether the jury should hear about Troconis’ alleged motive to conspire to kill Jennifer Farber Dulos and cover up the crimes.

Troconis, 49, is charged with conspiring with her former boyfriend, Fotis Dulos, to kill Farber Dulos, his estranged wife, as well as tampering with evidence and hindering prosecution.

Troconis jury to deliberate with Albany Avenue trip at forefront of Farber Dulos’ disappearance

State prosecutor Sean McGuiness listed several factors presented in the trial that he said the state believes speak to motive, such as Troconis described the two years of divorce proceedings between Dulos and Farber Dulos before Farber Dulos disappeared on May 24, 2019, as “torture” and that she was planning to move to Colorado as early as June 2019.

He also pointed to “disparaging comments” she allegedly made about Farber Dulos, which Dulos’ former Fore Group project manager, Pawel Gumienny, testified about.

Gumienny, who has been offered immunity from the state in exchange for his testimony, testified that before Farber Dulos disappeared, Troconis said she should be buried next to the family dog.

“That b—- should be buried right next to this dog,” Gumienny said he heard Troconis say when Dulos’ family dog was ill.

After Farber Dulos disappeared, Gumienny testified that Troconis said, “I’m gonna kill that (expletive) b—- when she turns up.”

McGuiness said that all these examples meant there was enough to introduce a motive to the jury before they start deliberating.

“We believe there is sufficient evidence to make an instruction on motive,” he said in court.

Schoenhorn disagreed.

“The fact that the court is saying that the divorce was negatively impacting her relationship and therefore she’s going to murder her boyfriend’s wife,” Schoenhorn said in court, “if that is considered motive then I guess moving to Colorado would need to be included there … the fact that there was a light at the end of the tunnel.”

He said the jury would also have to hear about witness testimony that Dulos told multiple people that the custody battle between him and Farber Dulos was progressing favorably for him.

“I just want to add that I’ve prosecuted cases where people have murdered for far less than the motive that we have presented in this case,” McGuiness said.

Randolph said the court would allow the jury to hear an instruction that involved evidence of motive, “as long as the court does not marshal evidence on behalf of the state.”

During the charge conference Monday, attorneys also went back and forth about whether the jury should hear that Troconis had to know she was involved with tampering with the evidence of a crime, or specifically evidence of a murder. They also debated how the jury should be instructed to consider the charge of conspiracy to commit murder.

“It’s true that (Troconis) did have to have the intent to commit murder when she entered into the agreement and we have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, but she was not there for the actual act of murder,” McGuiness said.

“It’s Fotis Dulos who would have had the intent to commit murder in the moment,” McGuiness added.  “The defendant, as part of the agreement, would have had the intent to commit murder pursuant to the conspiracy charge.”

In the way the charge was written, he said, the state acknowledged that they had to prove that Dulos murdered Farber Dulos and that Troconis conspired with him to cause her murder. But prosecutors wanted to ensure that the jury understood that Troconis is charged with conspiracy, not the act of murder.

McGuiness said this was the first case he and fellow prosecutor Assistant Supervisory State’s Assistant Michelle Manning had prosecuted without a body.

“This is a unique case, your honor, in that no body has ever been recovered,” he said. “I shouldn’t say unique, it’s not that it’s never happened, it’s certainly a first for these prosecutors.”

He said they researched case law on other cases prosecutors tried without a body and found that the state does not have to produce evidence of Farber Dulos’ body to find that she’s deceased.

“We’re only required to prove that Jennifer Dulos is dead, and her death was by criminal means,” McGuiness said, adding that they also did not have to provide evidence of a murder weapon. “Proof of the exact cause of death is not required, nor does the state have to connect a weapon directly to Fotis Dulos and the crime.”

The jury, he said, can consider both direct and circumstantial evidence when determining whether they believe Dulos killed his wife and Troconis conspired with him to do so.

During the trial, prosecutors showed the jury hours and hours of video of interviews Troconis did with investigators. In the first two interviews, she told investigators that she showered with Dulos the morning of May 24, 2019, and then saw him in his office. In a third interview, she told detectives she didn’t see him that morning at all.

The jury also saw videos of Troconis traveling with Dulos to Albany Avenue in Hartford the night Farber Dulos disappeared. There, Dulos disposed of items later linked to Farber Dulos, including a bloodied shirt and bra, in city trash bins. Troconis was in the passenger seat of Dulos’ pickup truck as he drove along Albany Avenue, placing bags into different bins.

Troconis is also accused of allegedly shuttling a red Toyota Tacoma pickup truck owned by Gumienny, to an Avon car wash after Farber Dulos disappeared.

Farber Dulos, who had five children with Dulos, vanished on May 24, 2019. Investigators allege Dulos, with whom she was tangled in a divorce and custody battle, was laying in wait in the garage of her New Canaan house when she arrived home from dropping their children off at school around 8 a.m.

An expert on bloodstain pattern analysis testified for the state that Farber Dulos was probably struck by at least two blows. Prosecutors allege that Dulos then moved her body and disposed of it.

Troconis is believed to have been allegedly involved in the cover-up of the crimes. DNA that was likely a match to Troconis was found on the outside of a garbage bag found in an Albany Avenue trash bin. She told investigators that on the afternoon of May 24, 2019, Dulos called her and asked her to come to clean a property he owned at 80 Mountain Spring Road in Farmington. While they were there, she said Dulos handed her a paper towel with a brownish stain, to throw away. She said she thought it was from a coffee spill in the Toyota Tacoma.

Investigators allege Dulos drove that Tacoma to New Canaan the morning they believe Farber Dulos was attacked and killed.

During the charge conference, attorneys also went back and forth about the mention of potential other co-conspirators and presumptive blood tests. The court adjourned for the day just before 1 p.m. on Monday.

The jury is due back in court at 10 a.m. Tuesday when attorneys for both sides will deliver their hour-long closing arguments. After that, the jury will be given the charge instructions that attorneys agreed to on after Monday’s proceedings and be sent off to begin their deliberations.